Fighting for All of America

[Terry Schultz]

Well written Nelson and it RINGS of the truth.



I was drafted near the end of the Vietnam era; 21 years old. With a pregant wife. I when to the Army, not out of patriotism but out of Duty. My MOS was 11B, a "grunt". I ended up not being sent to Nam (They started scaling down while I was in NCO school in my 9th month of duty). I did not want to go and had a very good job that I had to leave. I try to do my best in whatever situation I am or was in.



I found out that after I finished my two years, I was more patriotic. Not so much outwardly but moreso towards how I felt about my country and what it allows us as individuals to do. Was I a hero for going, NO.



What a shame that it took 9/11 for Patriotism to erupt in America.



WWII was a tremendous time of sacrifice for all Americans.



Terry

 

[Fudged Undies]

Way off the Union Discussion....



Nelson, I have to completely disagree with the comparison of Iraq to WWII. I'm sure most of the info available to most of us is biased in some way, but keep in mind, our "war" to "defend" the WTC began in afghanistan chasing mainly after one individual (his cohorts too and/or al-queida as a whole) but mainly Bin Laden. Thus far, to the best of my knowledge, he has yet to be captured or killed, and I really don't recall the last time his name was so much as mentioned on the news or any place else. Seems to me, that our 'duty' to go overseas and defend our country really has nothing to do with Iraq. If I were asked for one, single reason as to why exactly we are in Iraq, factual not my opinion, I don't think I could give one, much less one I believe. I don't have any recollection of you're above quote so I think I missed that thread but I think comparing WWII to the farce that is the Iraq war is an insult to all who have fought for this country including yourself since you're a military man. Our war is supposed to be on terrorism, at least, that's the excuse we were given for going to war. Seems to me that has pretty much been forgotten, and lets face it, we're not going to fight for the Iraqi peoples rights (or anyone elses) without wanting major payback.



By no means do I disagree with your arguments about patriotism but I do have to disagree with the comparison.



Back to the union discussion....

 

[Terry Schultz]

Spaceman --



I do not , by any means, to try to degrade what our military personel is doing in Iraq or any where else, but the Military now days is all voluntary - both regular and reserve duty. They have chosen the profession that they are in and are taught very early in training to follow the orders that are given to them.



The discussion of why we are in Iraq is another issue, (I, too, question our motive for being there).



As harse as it sounds, IMHO, we feel patriotic for those that serve - everyone that does go there is not a HERO. He did his duty and should be proud. Those that are lost is a sad thing for all of us and their families. They, too, did their duty and history will tell the necessity of that sacrifice.



Terry

 

[Terry Schultz]

Back to Unions -----------



Years ago. there was talk of unionizing the military.



Tom or others -- Would that be good if you tried to implement the current union philosafy (sp) to the military workplace ???? I am not talking of pay and benefits, but the other rules that apply in the workplace.



TJR - I have tried very hard not to put words like "know", "must" and others into my wording. I have also tried not to put a phrase that can be picked out specifically to mean a global statement. I have read a statement by you in another post regarding ( I paraphrase ) " I have to try --- etc." Does that mean you HAVE, no other option, to try and must do it ??? Selective word selection, or words, and embelishing what it could mean only entices negative responses, which you want I think. A discussion is an exchange of ideas with a discussion of pros and cons without dissection.



Terry

 

[Thomas Rogers]

TSSS, not sure what other thread you mean, but yes, I am anal when it comes to words, especially words dealing with absolutes.

 

[Tom Schindler]

I said..

That is the atitude of many people here. They might not say it directly, some have in the past in other threads, but they feel that way.

My post gets nitpicked. I will break down what I exactly I said.

That is the atitude of many people here.

Can anyone here tell me exactly "many" means. An exact number would be great.



I looked it up.

Main Entry: 1many

Pronunciation: 'me-nE

Function: adjective

Inflected Form(s): more /'mOr, 'mor/; most /'mOst/

Etymology: Middle English, from Old English manig; akin to Old High German manag many, Old Church Slavonic munogu much

1 : consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number <worked for many years>

2 : being one of a large but indefinite number <many a man> <many another student>

- as many : the same in number <saw three plays in as many days>

many is an indefinite number.



I looked up indefinite



Here is what I found

Main Entry: in·def·i·nite

Pronunciation: (")in-'def-n&t, -'de-f&-

Function: adjective

Etymology: Latin indefinitus, from in- + definitus definite

: not definite: as a : typically designating an unidentified, generic, or unfamiliar person or thing <the indefinite articles a and an> <indefinite pronouns> b : not precise : VAGUE c : having no exact limits d of floral organs : numerous and difficult to ascertain in number

- indefinite noun

- in·def·i·nite·ly adverb

- in·def·i·nite·ness noun

When I said many feel that way, I was making a correct statement that a large number without giving an exact figure feels Union members are "overpaid, lazy, and worthless".



In the past, members, I won't say many even though it says what it exactly what it is, have made comments about unions being "overpaid, lazy, and worthless".



Why do you try to pick appart my posts when I say something that is pretty much correct?



I tell it as I see it. I don't sugar coat it. I never have been that way, and honestly, I don't plan on changing. I am who I am and I am very happy with the person that I am.



I have been sucessful with just about everything I have attempted. We all fail, but it is something I rarely do.



As I have said in the past, I have worked both sides of the fence. I have seen corruption in both union shops and non-union shops. People getting raises that are slackers while those the work hard don't get a raise. I am tired of it. I have trained people and they were making more money then I did with less training then I have.



Frankly, I am sick of it.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Tom, when I read the following words from you:

That is the atitude of many people here. They might not say it directly, some have in the past in other threads, but they feel that way.

I took that to mean that you were saying that many here have a harsh union attitude, but that attitude isn't one they voice directly, but it is nonethless the way they feel.



If I misunderstood, I apologize, but I do think you are overly sensitive to critical union remarks, and your quote made it sound like you were paranoid about unspoken attitudes that people feel.



Furthermore, and as you said:

When I said many feel that way, I was making a correct statement that a large number without giving an exact figure feels Union members are "overpaid, lazy, and worthless".

There is a difference between you THINKING people FEEL that way, and people SAYING those things on this board. It is simply NOT the case that MANY people have said union members are overpaid, lazy and worthless on this board the past two years; they just haven't. You may think and suspect many might "feel" that way from their comments, but none have actually said it, not DIRECTLY (a word you used before). The only one that continues to make those types of DIRECT jabs against union members is YOU, in your sarcastic rants trying to repeat what you think others are feeling but not saying.



Sure, people have commented that isn't it a shame when someone clipping the grass on the GM plant grounds gets paid more than a firefighter, and they might comment about the skill of that job. But that is a FAR cry from anyone saying that same employee is "overpaid", "lazy" and "worthless".



Frankly, Tom, your skin is WAY TOO THIN on this subject, and you really need to stop being so defensive and offensive when it comes up. Please take that with the constructive nature it was intended.



Oh, and a MAJOR pet peeve of mine is sarcasm, especially self denigrating sarcasm. I gringe when I hear it, which is probably why I "lit into you" when you used it.



Didn't you ever get pissed when discussing something with someone, and they just stormed away while saying: "Well we can't all be as smart as you!", or "Well what do you expect from dumb old me?"



You and your union brothers are smarter and better than that Caymen.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Many here do have a harsh attitude towards union workers. Some have come right out and said Union workers are unskilled, lazy, and worthless. Some others don't say that directly, they have said it in a round-about way.



I take offense to those comments. Not all union workers are lazy, unskilled, and worthless.



You took offence that I insinuated you had no idea of the dangers without even knowing you were a firefighter.



You, yourself, even said assembly line workers are unskilled. Without knowing what skill is required to build a car, assemble an engine, or building an aircraft we really don't know what is involved. I know firefighters are trained very highly on how to extinguish a fire. To the untrained eye, one could say all you need to do is spray water. I am sure there is more to it then that.



People that see me throw iron powder on a weld thinks even a monkey can do it. Tell them to evaluate a weld to a code couldn't do it. There is more then meets the eye.





Tom

 

[Timmy-The-Ute]

I'm sorry about the lost of jobs at GM. Unions can't save those jobs. The government can force employment, like in France, but how many French cars do you see. I just wish Unions weren't in the back pocket of the Democrats.

 

[Johnny O]

The government can force employment, like in France, but how many French cars do you see?

Outside of France, none. My guess is that they restrict imports to protect the domestic producers. I'm not sure about France, but I know that Italy does. OTOH they export very few vehicles because they get their butts kicked in price and quality by everybody else....if they opened up their markets fully, Peugot, Citroen, and Fiat would be toast in short order. In a place like the U.S. with pretty open trade policies, there is a reason why you don't see these cars any more.

I just wish Unions weren't in the back pocket of the Democrats.

And vice-versa. Competition usually leads to improvement. The Dems can afford to take the union vote, and the black vote too, for granted because they know they're not going anywhere else. Thus the Dems can support environmental agendas that put union workers out of work but it doesn't cost them many votes. For example, Bill Clinton signed an executive order creating the Grand Escalante Staircase National Park, which also had the effect of putting America's largest reserve of low-sulphur coal off-limits. Hmm, could've been a lot of UMW jobs there. Thus more powerplants have to use natural gas because of pollution regs, cost of heating your house goes way up, and all the old-time Democrats where I live blame Bush and the oil companies. I dunno.



In my dinky backwater county in PA, we lost 30,000 good-paying union steelworker jobs (I used to be one) between 1980-85, and haven't recovered yet. Due mostly to costly EPA regs and cheaper imports. Yet somehow many people blame Reagan all the time, when the fact is that the layoffs started in late-'79 (me) and Reagan didn't take office until '81. Sweet gig, do what the greenie wing wants, put union members out of work, they'll vote straight Democrat anyway, and the Republicans get blamed.



If you want to protect union jobs you have to protect them from competition, which the govt often does within the U.S., but neither the Dems or Republicans do squat about restricting imports...but if you do that, we end up back talking about competition improving price and quality, and we're all driving Citroens that suck.

 

[Nelson Atwell]

France is part of the European Union. By definition, that means their market is open and free. EU countries have open borders to migration and trade, just as our US States have. That means any European company can sell vehicles in France. Additionally, Opel, owned by GM, is very successful there. Ford is also a big seller in France. Finally, Fiat is an Italian company, not French.



The US used to restrict imported cars. The Japanese simply built US plants to bypass the restrictions. A free market economy is what made America sucessful. Many of the social welfare programs enacted in the last half of the 20th Century are now biting us in the butt. They made our economy inefficient, and saddled the Government with a huge debt. It also created a huge welfare class of people who will not work for a living, because they would rather stay home, have a bunch of babies and live off of the Government.

 

[Gavin Allan]

If you want to protect union jobs, all sides of the fence have to be reasonable. Government needs to be sensitive to policies that affect employers. Employers need to have management that is smart, listens and reacts to employees, and focused on quality, and who will work for reasonable salaries. Unions need workers who are adaptable, produce quality, and who work for market-level wages without constantly striking for more.



Things are way out of balance in many US industries (such as automotive). Consequently, we are getting our ***** kicked by other countries.

 

[Johnny O]

That means any European company can sell vehicles in France. Additionally, Opel, owned by GM, is very successful there. Ford is also a big seller in France.

All true, what I'm mean is that I wonder if Toyota, Honda, and Nissan can sell freely there. Pre-EU, I know that Italy had a law that foreign auto companies were limited to selling the percentage of cars in Italy that Italy sold in their market. Therefore if no one wants your ishtboxes elsewhere, you don't have to worry about them selling their better cars in your market and putting you out of biz. I caught some British Consumer Reports-style show on satellite, they tested a few minicompacts and were amazed at how bad this new Citroen model was.

Finally, Fiat is an Italian company, not French.

I know, I thought I mentioned that.

Many of the social welfare programs enacted in the last half of the 20th Century are now biting us in the butt. They made our economy inefficient, and saddled the Government with a huge debt.

Werd. It's bad, but not as bad as Europe.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen says:

Some have come right out and said Union workers are unskilled, lazy, and worthless. Some others don't say that directly, they have said it in a round-about way.

Okay, please quote the posts then!



If you find more than 5 legit, direct statements on this board by people that state that "Union works" are unskilled, lazy, and worthless, then I will eat crow. But the must be direct and not general, nor observational.



As I said, to be legit and direct in my mind, it has to be accusatory of "all", "most" or even that ambiquous "many", and NOT simply a statement about observiations of "one person and one incident". Nor can they be generalizations like the one where several discussed if a lower-skilled union member should make more than a teacher or firefighter. I say these are exempt, because these are EXACTLY the types of comments which are not direct. They are simply people discussing a topic and we should be able accept such comments without any implied harsh intent, nor return them with sarcasm and contempt.



I suspect as you go through and do your search Caymen, and post a few back and we discuss them (if you want to do this) you may find that what you thought was a direct *** was more anectodal.



I am eager to see what others have said in an abridged manner.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Oh, and Caymen, you said:

People that see me throw iron powder on a weld thinks even a monkey can do it. Tell them to evaluate a weld to a code couldn't do it. There is more then meets the eye.

I don't think that, and I have never even seen you do your job.



Do you really think there are people that honestly think monkeys can do your job?



Even if they WERE to say it, do you REALLY think they believe it?



That's the kind of over-the-top, self-denigrating put-down that you bring upon yourself as an accusation of others behavior that I just cannot accept as real.



TJR

 

[TomT]

I just wish Unions weren't in the back pocket of the Democrats.

I got to agree with you there. That's the one thing I hate about my union. If it wasn't for unions and welfare recipients, the Democrats wouldn't get any votes.

 

[Johnny O]

I've been in unions and not, in mgt and in labor. I would never say that all, most, some, whatever, union members are lazy, etc. However, whether deserved or not, unions have developed a reputation for protecting the jobs of people who really ought to be fired. It's one thing to keep someone from wrongfully losing their job, but protecting people who call off, show up drunk, school teachers who've been convicted of sexually abusing students, then that hurts everybody. The skilled trade unions like Caymen's, the electrical unions, carpenters, etc. have long appreticeship and training programs designed to train people and provide quality work. Others, like the faculty union at the college I used to work at, are all about protecting their union jobs and doing actual work is a secondary consideration.

 

[Michael Cacioppo]

Here are a few general statements, not condoning nor condemning unions. Just some statements to think about.



. The real cost of union labour is not their salaries but their benefits. Working for 20 years at $40K a year, then working fantastic overtime in the last year to get your retirement salary basis up to say $60K. Assuming you started at 20 and retired after 20, you'd be 40 collecting, say 50% retirement, if you lived to 80. That's like making $80K per work year with no retirement fund in a $40K job. Don't forget the medical retirement.



. Unions have a legitimate gripe if management were able to indiscriminately lay off workers, without repercussions. On the other hand it should be skill level, not years on the job, that dictates promotion. Companies already have enough incompetent managers without adding additional morons to their line supervisors.



. Unions, just like companies in competition, should not be allowed to have a monopoly of labor in an industry. Automobile manufacturers should not have to conent with the same union across the industries which can "blackmail" a particular manufacturer by targeting only that one and leaving the rest alone (for now).



.Engineers, doctors, lawyers, architects, Veterinarians and other educationally intensive professions, cost the individual up to $30K per year in tuition, while forgoing any income over that period. That basically puts them $50K down EVERY year that they are in school. After 5 years, they are down a minimum of $250K. Please consider this when assessing their real income during their working years.



.Many times the union worker actually loses income, that is not re-coped, when the strike is for an extended period of time, and the wage difference disagreement is small.



Management should receive bonuses based upon performance, OVER SEVERAL YEARS. It's easy to make a profit in the short term buy selling assets or reducing quality or product desirability.





Just a few thought....mikeC

 

[Tom Schindler]

Delphi wants to cut the Union wages, then give the money saved as a bonus to the Salary higher ups.



Isn't that nice of them.





Tom

 

[Gavin Allan]

Delphi wants to cut the Union wages, then give the money saved as a bonus to the Salary higher ups.



Isn't that nice of them.

Nope. They will only hasten their demise.



Greed helps no one long term.